Same Sex Marriage ban

[matt fe2o3]

Serious question are you high?

Dude this is huge. I don't think folks see the issue or the fundamental lack of controls that Federal acceptance will cause.

I'm actually a huge proponent of universal health and dental care, but this is just more than allowing gay marriage, it is dismantling of how society functions. Not good in it's present form.

 

[EjGlows]

Yes.

 

[UDRider]

Dude this is huge. I don't think folks see the issue or the fundamental lack of controls that Federal acceptance will cause.

I'm actually a huge proponent of universal health and dental care, but this is just more than allowing gay marriage, it is dismantling of how society functions. Not good in it's present form.

Fundamental lack of controls? Only controls now is imposed by religious people with some thinly disguised bigoted arguments. If you really wanted controls you will be for imposing restrictions on heterosexual couples, so two idiots couldn't get married right out of high school and start popping out babies with no means to support them besides getting on to welfare.

 

[matt fe2o3]

If you really wanted controls you will be for imposing restrictions on heterosexual couples, so two idiots couldn't get married right out of high school and start popping out babies with no means to support them besides getting on to welfare.

I think that would be great.

 

[Damn True]

Fundamental lack of controls? Only controls now is imposed by religious people with some thinly disguised bigoted arguments. If you really wanted controls you will be for imposing restrictions on heterosexual couples, so two idiots couldn't get married right out of high school and start popping out babies with no means to support them besides getting on to welfare.

He's talking about a big step away from states rights and toward increased federalism and the inherent risks posed by that move. With regard to said risk, Patrick Henry was and remains right.

I fully support gay marriage, but I think it is and should be a states rights issue. I wish enough of my fellow Californians agreed that we did not have to take apart a portion of the US Constitution in order to make what ought to be, what is.

 

[Bronto]

Keep politics out of it

Liberals get a thrill causing controversy of establishment. Its all about the controversy not the actual goal or issue. Playing emotions using propaganda.

Their like the Anarchists in the Occupy protests. Just there for the violence and damage.

 

[Bronto]

For those presumptuousness enough - Check out Chinese Marriage - Its all about that Woman and Man theme again, sorry.

 

[Idontdotrix]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea that two people who want to commit themselves for life to each other are somehow not wholesome and are bankrupting the greater society....

...whikle some of the people w ho are entitled to the simplified process of a legal lifetime commitment by nothing more thanthe fact they are of the opposite sex can have 72 day marriages that cost $10M, can cheat, repeatedly, publicly, and say aw shucks, gee sorry MYBAD! , can divorce and remarry as many times as they like... wait a second, who's the bad guys here again?

a gay couple getting married doesn't threaten my straight marriage one bit in any way shape or form. it doesn't affect my bills, my taxes or the happiness in my home.

just how insecure in your own relationship do you need to be to blame gay couples for your problems????

 

[RRR70]

I think a lot of folk miss the point. If the Supreme Court decides in favor they will upset pension, medical and other benefit programs, public and private.

There is no litmus test for gay marriage any more than traditional marriage (mail order brides excepted). So instead of enabling a contract of marriage between two people, you enable pension, medical and benefit between anyone that chooses. This country thrives on opportunity and don't think for a moment that the supreme court cannot project a decision that would bankrupt the county, in a variety of opportunistic ways.

Really what we have here is a very very very small cross section if the population who much like the so called "occupy" cannot be satisfied with constitutional privileges and without regard for the cost to others and the public, behave in a way to bankrupt the greater society.

What you want will cost multiples 10's of thousands per person in this country. It is an abuse free for all, which every honest taxpayer will be on the hook for.

No thanks.

Bullfuckingshit. Look up 14th Amendment.

 

[UDRider]

I think that would be great.

Well then go campaign for limiting heterosexual marriages and ability to have children. See how well that will go.

He's talking about a big step away from states rights and toward increased federalism and the inherent risks posed by that move. With regard to said risk, Patrick Henry was and remains right.

I fully support gay marriage, but I think it is and should be a states rights issue. I wish enough of my fellow Californians agreed that we did not have to take apart a portion of the US Constitution in order to make what ought to be, what is.

Trying to follow his arguments is like trying to nail jello to the wall. He might have kind of started in that direction, then completely jumped the ship and went on to argue that allowing same sex marriage will bring financial doom to this country. As for state vs federal. In some cases federal government does need to intervene so that things like Prop 8 don't become legal. There needs to be a balance.

 

[Bronto]

Interesting remark made by a legal analyst on a TV news talk program. The 9th Court decision finding "no legitimate reason" to reverse the decision made by the previous Court. Was explained "a right granted can not be taken away" without a legitimate reason.

When was marriage granted to same sex ? Was it when Cavin Nusom declared Gay Marriage for all ? Was it the subsequent ruling those marriages that took place can be considered legit, just don't do anymore ?

Anyrate the right granted has a very convoluted origin. There is very significant Legitimate reasons, were they not considered ?

 

[Idontdotrix]

the "right" is the right of two adult individuals to be married.
what Prop 8 wanted to do was change the state constitution to read that it could only be between a man and a woman.
this restricts a right already granted to all individuals by excluding those with same sexual preference.

 

[Joebar4000]

Keep politics out of it

Liberals get a thrill causing controversy of establishment.

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?????

The Christian nutjobs stirred the pot with Prop 8 in the first place.

There is no facepalm big enough.

 

[matt fe2o3]

Well then go campaign for limiting heterosexual marriages and ability to have children. See how well that will go.

Not on my short list of things to do, I figure we do more good in this way by the example we set in our own behavior versus standing in front of Raleys' with a cardboard sign.

It is a hardship for the children and poor family planning can be a bondage born into for sure.

 

[Joebar4000]

Interesting remark made by a legal analyst on a TV news talk program. The 9th Court decision finding "no legitimate reason" to reverse the decision made by the previous Court. Was explained "a right granted can not be taken away" without a legitimate reason.

When was marriage granted to same sex ? Was it when Cavin Nusom declared Gay Marriage for all ? Was it the subsequent ruling those marriages that took place can be considered legit, just don't do anymore ?

Anyrate the right granted has a very convoluted origin. There is very significant Legitimate reasons, were they not considered ?

More

The 14th Amendment, try to keep up Beavis:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The irony here is that if Prop 8 is overturned, it will specifically grant rights to homosexual marriage to everyone, whereas before, it was neither specifically denied, nor granted.

Not specifically granted != illegal

But specifically denying = 'abridge the privileges'

 

[Karbon]

Just a heads up MattFe1238477 what the fuck ever, as noted in previous threads about this subject, thinks homosexuality, contrary to scientific evidence, is a mental disorder, btw. And pretty much all of his arguments he uses, used, will use are circular and are basically thinly veiled attempts at homophobic apologetics.

I'd have more respect for him if he just said "I hate gays". But watching mental gymnastics around this issue on his part is fucking pathetically hilarious.

 

[Joebar4000]

"Riding motorcycles isn't natural.

It's dangerous and abhorrent behavior.

Anyone who would willing endanger their lives just for 'fun' is sick in the head.

We should put it to a vote and have it outlawed."

Do you have any idea how easy it would be to get a motion to ban motorcycling, on the basis of it being dangerous? Or insert <bungee jumping/parachute jumping/rock climbing/motorsports>

There are an awful, awful lot of things that minorities do that the majority frowns upon.

The Constitution was created to protect the rights of individuals to partake in any risky, optional lifestyle they choose, as long as it does not harm anyone else. Even if such lifestyles are dangerous to themselves.

Let alone lifestyle decision over which they have no choice, that do not affect others directly.

Homosexuals being allowed to marry will not change my daily routine AT ALL. Nor does other people jumping out of planes/climbing rocks/going hunting etc. etc. affect me at all.

But Prop 8 is based upon 'I don't like what you're doing, so I'm going to make a law to stop you having the same rights as me', which is utterly, utterly against the founding principles of America.

The WHOLE POINT of America being founded in the first place, was freedom to express yourself as long as it does not harm anyone else.

Seriously, that's the Constitution in a nutshell.

If you think it's OK to put a ballot together restricting the rights of a minority of the population, then you also agree it's OK to put a ballot on the books to ban motorcycling/parachute jumping/playing cards on a Friday.

There's a huge difference between writing laws to protect you from danger from others' activities (e.g. having a human man-hunt) and laws to protect you from activities of others you simply don't like.

If we go down the road of putting things on the ballot we don't like, very quickly George Orwell's 1984 will seem like a bastion of freedom of expression in comparison.

If you want to start down the path to a homogenized society where only the social mores of the absolute majority are the rule, then go ahead. Sooner or later, the majority will start deciding stuff that you do, is unsafe/unsanitary/unwanted, and will vote to ban it.

Including religion.

 

[JesasaurusRex]

"Riding motorcycles isn't natural.

It's dangerous and abhorrent behavior.

Anyone who would willing endanger their lives just for 'fun' is sick in the head.

We should put it to a vote and have it outlawed."

Do you have any idea how easy it would be to get a motion to ban motorcycling, on the basis of it being dangerous? Or insert <bungee jumping/parachute jumping/rock climbing/motorsports>

There are an awful, awful lot of things that minorities do that the majority frowns upon.

The Constitution was created to protect the rights of individuals to partake in any risky, optional lifestyle they choose, as long as it does not harm anyone else. Even if such lifestyles are dangerous to themselves.

Let alone lifestyle decision over which they have no choice, that do not affect others directly.

Homosexuals being allowed to marry will not change my daily routine AT ALL. Nor does other people jumping out of planes/climbing rocks/going hunting etc. etc. affect me at all.

But Prop 8 is based upon 'I don't like what you're doing, so I'm going to make a law to stop you having the same rights as me', which is utterly, utterly against the founding principles of America.

The WHOLE POINT of America being founded in the first place, was freedom to express yourself as long as it does not harm anyone else.

Seriously, that's the Constitution in a nutshell.

If you think it's OK to put a ballot together restricting the rights of a minority of the population, then you also agree it's OK to put a ballot on the books to ban motorcycling/parachute jumping/playing cards on a Friday.

There's a huge difference between writing laws to protect you from danger from others' activities (e.g. having a human man-hunt) and laws to protect you from activities of others you simply don't like.

If we go down the road of putting things on the ballot we don't like, very quickly George Orwell's 1984 will seem like a bastion of freedom of expression in comparison.

If you want to start down the path to a homogenized society where only the social mores of the absolute majority are the rule, then go ahead. Sooner or later, the majority will start deciding stuff that you do, is unsafe/unsanitary/unwanted, and will vote to ban it.

Including religion.

 

[Climber]

"Riding motorcycles isn't natural.

It's dangerous and abhorrent behavior.

Anyone who would willing endanger their lives just for 'fun' is sick in the head.

We should put it to a vote and have it outlawed."

Do you have any idea how easy it would be to get a motion to ban motorcycling, on the basis of it being dangerous? Or insert <bungee jumping/parachute jumping/rock climbing/motorsports>

There are an awful, awful lot of things that minorities do that the majority frowns upon.

The Constitution was created to protect the rights of individuals to partake in any risky, optional lifestyle they choose, as long as it does not harm anyone else. Even if such lifestyles are dangerous to themselves.

Let alone lifestyle decision over which they have no choice, that do not affect others directly.

Homosexuals being allowed to marry will not change my daily routine AT ALL. Nor does other people jumping out of planes/climbing rocks/going hunting etc. etc. affect me at all.

But Prop 8 is based upon 'I don't like what you're doing, so I'm going to make a law to stop you having the same rights as me', which is utterly, utterly against the founding principles of America.

The WHOLE POINT of America being founded in the first place, was freedom to express yourself as long as it does not harm anyone else.

Seriously, that's the Constitution in a nutshell.

If you think it's OK to put a ballot together restricting the rights of a minority of the population, then you also agree it's OK to put a ballot on the books to ban motorcycling/parachute jumping/playing cards on a Friday.

There's a huge difference between writing laws to protect you from danger from others' activities (e.g. having a human man-hunt) and laws to protect you from activities of others you simply don't like.

If we go down the road of putting things on the ballot we don't like, very quickly George Orwell's 1984 will seem like a bastion of freedom of expression in comparison.

If you want to start down the path to a homogenized society where only the social mores of the absolute majority are the rule, then go ahead. Sooner or later, the majority will start deciding stuff that you do, is unsafe/unsanitary/unwanted, and will vote to ban it.

Including religion.

Some great points, though they'll probably be lost on the Bigots.

My favorite example is that in another 20 years, the hispanic population will be over 50% in California. Wouldn't it be 'the will of the people' to make the state language Spanish?

 

[MtnRacer]

Just a heads up MattFe1238477 what the fuck ever, as noted in previous threads about this subject, thinks homosexuality, contrary to scientific evidence, is a mental disorder, btw. And pretty much all of his arguments he uses, used, will use are circular and are basically thinly veiled attempts at homophobic apologetics.

I'd have more respect for him if he just said "I hate gays". But watching mental gymnastics around this issue on his part is fucking pathetically hilarious.

I wish everybody's signature had a quote like this that pre-explains all their predjudices, political dispositions, etc.

Steve